Canadian Human Rights Tribunal: smart meter class action begins

On August 28, 2012, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) issued a decision approving a representative complaint (akin to a class action) against BC Hydro on behalf of “those persons allegedly diagnosed with electromagnetic hypersensitivity and who have been advised to avoid exposure to wireless technology”.

The Tribunal approved the representation of that class by the Citizens for Safe Technology Society, which it found to have authority to bring the representative complaint.  The Society may be contacted at www.citizensforsafetechnology.org  by any person wishing to join in the complaint.

The Tribunal found that the complaint brought by the Citizens for Safe Technology Society properly alleges a breach of the Human Rights Code in that it alleges a disability,  adverse treatment in respect of a service customarily available to the public, and a nexus or connection between the disability and the adverse treatment. By way of the Complaint, the Citizens for Safe Technology Society seeks:

  • A declaration that BC Hydro has discriminated against each person in the Class by failing to provide each person in the Class with an unconditional written commitment that BC Hydro will refrain from installing and/or operating a wireless smart meter at the individual’s place of residence and/or residential complex.
  •  An order that BC Hydro cease and desist forthwith from the said discrimination by offering to refrain from installing and/or operating a wireless smart meter at the individual’s place of residence and/or residential complex.

On May 31, 2011, the World Health Organization classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields a 2B carcinogen, same as DDT and lead. The emissions generated by the Smart Meters fall under this classification of emissions and risk.

The Citizens for Safe Technology Society is currently fundraising to bring a tort action against BC Hydro so as to prohibit the imposition of microwave emitting smart meters on BC residents regardless of whether they have electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

O Accountability, Where Art Thou?

Several weeks ago PG&E called Sebastopol notifying the city they planned to deploy Smart Meters in the city within weeks. PG&E wanted to speak to the council members, and refused to put anything in writing. Sebastopol’s response to PG&E was to adopt a resolution to: “Delay all Smart Meter installations and deployment in the city of Sebastopol until the CPUC has formally concluded phase 2 Smart Meter opt-out proceedings.

PG&E’s response?  “we believe such a blanket delay would disadvantage most of our customers in Sebastopol and cannot agree to your proposal.”

 Today EMF Safety Network filed a Motion with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in the Smart Meter Opt-Out proceeding to request judicial notice and defer Smart Meter installation in the City of  Sebastopol (Motion).

*     *     *     *     *

Here’s a readers response to PG&E:

“PG&E has refused to abide by the Sebastopol City Council’s request for a delay on SmartMeter installation until the Public Utilities Commission has reached a conclusion. Their rationale, according to PG&E spokesman Greg Snapper, is that, “We believe that individual choice rather than community opt-out strikes a good balance.” PG&E thus gives itself permission to act while a legally appointed agency’s ruling is pending.

Following this example, my neighbor can remodel his home before he has a permit. A hotel can be built in a residential community while a zoning hearing is happening. A factory discharging chemicals into the Russian River can be constructed while an environmental impact report is still pending. Eminent domain over demolition of homes for a highway can happen while the planning commission is in the process of meeting.

Think about it, folks. Everybody has permission, just like PG&E, to do whatever they please, whenever they please, however they please, and to hell with the rest of the community, town, city, state, nation and the world. It’s bad enough as it is. Do we have to make it worse?”

—MARYLOU SHIRA HADDITT
Sebastopol

We are suing the CPUC!

Cartoon by Jim Heddle EON

On June 7th, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) denied the EMF Safety Network Rehearing Request on the grounds that, “the evidence does not support re-opening a review of Smart Meters.” Because the Rehearing Request is denied we can now sue the CPUC for failing to address serious Smart Meter issues, including health and safety impacts, and FCC compliance.

The CPUC has buried it’s head in the sand!

The CPUC rubber stamped PG&E claims of Smart Meter safety!

Although no new evidence can be added to the lawsuit in Appeals court, this lawsuit is important because it could force the CPUC to address the issues it has been ignoring.

The CPUC has NEVER addressed the health and safety impacts of Smart Meters.  They’ve only provided an opt out with a penalty!

We need to raise $25,000 for legal costs ASAP!  Attorneys James Hobson and Joshua Nelson of Best, Best and Krieger will represent us in the California First Court of Appeals. The lawsuit will be filed by the July 11 deadline.

If every customer on PG&E’s delay list would donate 15 cents, we’d have it covered! Considering we probably won’t reach those 177,000 people, if people donate $10-$100 this will help! Please give whatever amount you can!

The results of suing the CPUC, if we win, will be that the Court will mandate the CPUC to address our original EMF Safety Network Application which includes:

  • Re-opening both of the Smart Meter proceedings (D.06-07-027 and D.09-03-026)
  • Evidentiary hearings on radiation health, environmental, and safety impacts
  • Review of actual Smart Meter program performance
  • An independently prepared RF Emissions Study

Your contributions will enable us to step up and challenge the CPUC!!

Thanks to all of you who’ve already given to this cause. Legal costs are ongoing, as we are still participating in the CPUC opt-out proceeding, so any amount you can contribute is a HUGE help!

We believe that whatever the CPUC rules for PG&E, they will eventually apply to other utilities! So, please support our efforts, even if you are a customer of another California utility!

Inching towards justice!  THANKS TO ALL YOUR EFFORTS!

Does the FCC Plan to Rubber Stamp Outdated Cell Phone Radiation Standards?

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will conduct a formal review of the U.S. cell phone radiation standards according to a Bloomberg news report: “FCC. Wireless Devices and Health Concerns.”

An FCC spokesperson emailed a statement to a Bloomberg reporter that is truly alarming. Her message suggests that the FCC has already decided that the current standards are fine, and will conduct a review to rubber stamp the 1996 FCC guidelines:

“Tammy Sun, a spokeswoman for the agency, said in an e-mailed statement. The notice won’t propose rules, Sun said.

‘Our action today is a routine review of our standards,’ Sun said. ‘We are confident that, as set, the emissions guidelines for devices pose no risks to consumers.'”

The Bloomberg article cites a major review of the literature conducted by our research center in which we found an association between mobile phone use and increased brain tumor risk especially after 10 years of cell phone use:

“There is possible evidence linking mobile-phone use to an increased risk of tumors, according to a study of scientific studies and articles that was published in 2009 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.”

The research we reviewed and subsequent research strongly suggest that the current standards for cell phone radiation are not adequate to protect us from health risks associated with exposure to cell phone radiation. A year ago, a 31-member group of experts convened by the World Health Organization agreed with our conclusions and classified cell phone radiation a “possible carcinogen.”

The FCC standards were established in 1996 at a time when few adults used cell phones. Today, children and most adults are exposed to far more cell phone radiation than the FCC-approved test models are subjected to when new cell phones are certified. Moreover, the test assumes that cell phones can harm us only by heating tissue. This is not true as there are numerous studies that demonstrate non-thermal effects from cell phone radiation including increased glucose metabolism in the brain, generation of heat shock proteins, free radicals, and double-strand DNA breaks; penetration of the blood-brain barrier, damage to sperm and increased male infertility.

The FCC admits on its web site* that “there is no federally developed national standard for safe levels of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy.” “The FCC’s guidelines and rules regarding RF exposure are based upon standards developed by IEEE and NCRP and input from other federal agencies.”

I have grave concerns if the FCC continues to rely on industry-funded expert groups because our research found that industry-funded epidemiologic research was generally of lower quality and biased against finding harmful effects. Dr. Henry Lai at the University of Washington has come to a similar conclusion in his analysis of the toxicology research.

In my opinion, it is premature to adopt new safety standards because we need more research that is independent of the wireless industry’s influence. The Federal government needs to sponsor a major research initiative on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation. Martin Blank and Reba Goodman from Columbia University recently published a paper in the journal, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, calling for the development of a biologically-based measure of electromagnetic radiation (abstract below).

In the interim, to protect cell phone users we must adopt and disseminate precautionary health warnings that promote safer cell phone use. Although The FCC web site provides some simple steps to reduce exposure to cell phone radiation, it “does not endorse the need for these practices.” A dozen nations and the city of San Francisco have issued precautionary warnings about cell phone use to its citizens. It is time for our Federal government to do so.

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Director Center for Family and Community Health
The UC Berkeley Prevention Research Center
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
 

CPUC Smart Meter Opt-Out Proceeding Phase 2 Begins

On May 16, 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) prehearing conference was held in San Francisco to establish the scope of the second phase of the Smart Meter opt-out proceeding. The scope was intended to address opt-out cost, allocation of cost (who pays) and the rights of whole communities to opt-out. Parties are also asking for hearings on Smart Meter health and safety impacts, and commercial rights to be included in the scope of phase two. EMF Safety Network’s comments can be heard at 24:50. Read the Network PHC Statement. More information including part 2 of the video taping of this proceeding visit Ecological Options Network.

Vermont Legislature Adopts Free Smart Meter Opt-Out

Last week the State Legislators of Vermont voted to allow utility customers a no fee Smart Meter opt-out! Specifically, the bill says that customers must be allowed “to choose not to have a wireless smart meter installed, at no additional monthly or other charge”.

*From the proposed House of Representatives bill: Sec. 15. 30 V.S.A. § 2811 SMART METERS; CUSTOMER RIGHTS; REPORTS (b) Customer rights. Notwithstanding any law, order, or agreement to the contrary, an electric company may install a wireless smart meter on a customer’s premises, provided the company:  (1) provides prior written notice to the customer indicating that the meter will use radio or other wireless means for two-way communication between the meter and the company and informing the customer of his or her rights under subdivisions (2) and (3) of this subsection;

(2) allows a customer to choose not to have a wireless smart meter installed, at no additional monthly or other charge; and (3) allows a customer to require removal of a previously installed wireless smart meter for any reason and at an agreed-upon time, without incurring any charge for such removal.

The legislation also calls for future reports related to smart meters to be submitted on: cost-savings associated with smart meters; whether any security breaches occurred because of the wireless technology; and the health effects of smart meters.

Meanwhile, the Vermont Public Service Board who regulate the Vermont utilities had already approved delaying opt-out charges until April 2013.  The purpose of suspending the fees were to evaluate the real costs, instead of arbitrary numbers.

In California, the Public Utilities Commission approved arbitrary and punitive opt-out fees, and is forcing customers who do not want Smart Meters to agree to the charges- even though they’ve never evaluated the charges!  Seems like Vermont has a few smarter people in charge.

Matt Levin, Outreach and Development Director for Vermonters for a Clean Environment stated they were “pleased the Legislature made such a strong statement on this issue”, however he also expressed caution as the Public Service Board and utilities will continue to evaluate the costs associated with opting out in upcoming proceedings and he said, “our enthusiasm is tempered by the realities and struggles of past experiences”.

However, there will be NO fees charged for at least one year and the legislature has banned the fees altogether. For now, Vermonters have been provided with relief and a victory!   CONGRATULATIONS!

PG&E’s spying may cost them

Wiliam “Ralph” Devereaux, was the Senior Director of the PG&E Smart Meter program from October 2009 to November 2010.  Devereaux was the public face for the PG&E Smart Meter program and he appeared at many community meetings throughout PG&E’s service territory. Devereaux resigned from PG&E in November 2010 after he was caught trying to infiltrate an EMF Safety Network online discussion list.  Prior to being caught he had infiltrated other anti smart meter groups, including Stop Smart Meters and posted comments to discredit their views, using the fake name, “Ralph.”

PG&E tried to characterize Devereaux as a rogue employee who acted alone.  But the lengthy investigation by the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) Consumer Protection and Safety Division revealed that Devereaux forwarded emails that he collected using the false identity to his boss and other senior managers at PG&E, including a member of the legal department.  The EMF Safety Network was involved in a legal proceeding at the CPUC against PG&E at the time of PG&E’s spying.

Today the CPUC ordered an investigation into PG&E’s activities to determine if PG&E engaged in deceitful conduct towards consumer groups. The Consumer Protection and Safety Division of the CPUC concluded that:

1. PG&E violated PU Code Section 451 by failing to furnish just and reasonable service when Mr. Devereaux lied about his identity to infiltrate online smart meter discussion groups in order to spy on their activities and discredit their views; and

2. PG&E senior management knew of Mr. Devereaux’s deceit before it was reported in the press and failed to prevent and stop his inappropriate behavior.

The CPUC states, “Mr. Devereaux’s actions are considered the actions of PG&E.” and “PG&E lost the public’s trust when Mr. Devereaux was caught using a false identity to join the EMF Safety Network.”  PG&E is now notified that fines may be imposed in this matter and hearings will be held at the CPUC.

Here’s the email exchange between William Devereaux and Sandi Maurer, who received a notice from Google that manasota99@gmail.com, wanted to join the CA EMF Safety Coalition, an online anti smart meter discussion list. This is the string of emails where the computer outed the real identity of <manasota99@gmail.com>:

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:08 AM, EMF Safety Network <EMFSafe@sonic.net> wrote:

Hello,

Please let me know more about your interest in joining the CA EMF Coalition. This discussion group has been set up for county leaders focused on EMF, specifically RF Smart meters.

Please include where you live, what aspect of smart meter issue you are working on and how you came to be involved in this issue. There may be a better group that I can help connect you to, or you may be our next county lead. Please let me know.

Thanks,

Sandi

Sandi Maurer

EMF Safety Network

www.emfsafetynetwork.org

On Nov 4, 2010, at 3:23 PM, William Devereaux wrote:

Hi Sandi,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I’ve been travelling a lot.

I live in Oakland where Smart meters have been sweeping across town and wanted to learn more about them and join the conversation to see what I can do to help out here.

Thanks,

Ralph

From: EMF Safety Network <EMFSafe@sonic.net>

Date: November 4, 2010 7:10:36 PM PDT

To: William Devereaux <manasota99@gmail.com>

Cc: california-emf-safety-coalition <california-emf-safety-coalition@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: Your interest in joining the California EMF Coalition?

Hi,

Aren’t you the head of the Smart Meter program at PG&E? We’d love your help!

Can you help us obtain a Smart Meter moratorium ASAP? People who are asking for meters not to be installed are being bullied, signs on meters are being disregarded and the CPUC has received 2000 Smart Meter complaints from Aug 15-Oct 15. We need a moratorium ASAP and the opportunity to be heard at the CPUC.

Your help would be invaluable. Thanks for contacting us.

Sandi

SCE and SDG&E- smart meter opt-out approved!

The California Public Utilities Commission approved a smart meter opt out program for Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) customers, similar to the PG&E opt out program approved in February.

SCE:  Starting May 9, customers may opt out by calling 1-800-810-2369.  For customers already on the delay list, calling the number will enable them to enroll in the opt-out program and keep their current meters. Customers who have a smart meter, but would like to opt out, can have their meter exchanged for the type (i.e., electro-mechanical analog meter or non-analog, non-smart digital meter) that was previously in place.

SDG&E: Similar opt out program approved, using analog meters.  SDG&E will begin removing smart meters within 20 days.  Call 1-800-411-7343

Unfortunately, the punitive, arbitrary, and likely illegal fees to opt out continue to be imposed by the CPUC.  Approval was given to interim fees of $75 for set-up and $10 per month for meter reading, and CARE fees of $10 for set-up and $5 per month. A second phase of the CPUC proceeding will be held to evaluate cost, and community wide opt-outs.

Meanwhile the CPUC also approved new metrics to track how the smart grid projects are delivering value to customers. These metrics include tracking: load and demand response programs, home area network usage, customer complaints, malfunctioning meters, and others.